02/02/2022 12:44, Ray Kinsella:
> Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> writes:
> > On 1/28/2022 12:48 PM, Kalesh A P wrote:
> >> --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
> >> +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
> >> @@ -3818,6 +3818,24 @@ enum rte_eth_event_type {
> >> RTE_ETH_EVENT_DESTROY, /**< port is released */
> >> RTE_ETH_EVENT_IPSEC, /**< IPsec offload related event */
> >> RTE_ETH_EVENT_FLOW_AGED,/**< New aged-out flows is detected */
> >> + RTE_ETH_EVENT_ERR_RECOVERING,
> >> + /**< port recovering from an error
> >> + *
> >> + * PMD detected a FW reset or error condition.
> >> + * PMD will try to recover from the error.
> >> + * Data path may be quiesced and Control path operations
> >> + * may fail at this time.
> >> + */
> >> + RTE_ETH_EVENT_RECOVERED,
> >> + /**< port recovered from an error
> >> + *
> >> + * PMD has recovered from the error condition.
> >> + * Control path and Data path are up now.
> >> + * PMD re-configures the port to the state prior to the
> >> error.
> >> + * Since the device has undergone a reset, flow rules
> >> + * offloaded prior to reset may be lost and
> >> + * the application should recreate the rules again.
> >> + */
> >> RTE_ETH_EVENT_MAX /**< max value of this enum */
> >
> >
> > Also ABI check complains about 'RTE_ETH_EVENT_MAX' value check, cc'ed more
> > people
> > to evaluate if it is a false positive:
> >
> >
> > 1 function with some indirect sub-type change:
> > [C] 'function int rte_eth_dev_callback_register(uint16_t,
> > rte_eth_event_type, rte_eth_dev_cb_fn, void*)' at rte_ethdev.c:4637:1 has
> > some indirect sub-type changes:
> > parameter 3 of type 'typedef rte_eth_dev_cb_fn' has sub-type changes:
> > underlying type 'int (typedef uint16_t, enum rte_eth_event_type,
> > void*, void*)*' changed:
> > in pointed to type 'function type int (typedef uint16_t, enum
> > rte_eth_event_type, void*, void*)':
> > parameter 2 of type 'enum rte_eth_event_type' has sub-type
> > changes:
> > type size hasn't changed
> > 2 enumerator insertions:
> > 'rte_eth_event_type::RTE_ETH_EVENT_ERR_RECOVERING' value '11'
> > 'rte_eth_event_type::RTE_ETH_EVENT_RECOVERED' value '12'
> > 1 enumerator change:
> > 'rte_eth_event_type::RTE_ETH_EVENT_MAX' from value '11' to
> > '13' at rte_ethdev.h:3807:1
>
> I don't immediately see the problem that this would cause.
> There are no array sizes etc dependent on the value of MAX for instance.
>
> Looks safe?
We never know how this enum will be used by the application.
The max value may be used for the size of an event array.
It looks a real ABI issue unfortunately.
PS: I am not Cc'ed in this patchset,
so copying what I said on v6 (more than a year ago):
Please use the option --cc-cmd devtools/get-maintainer.sh
